Cases: Section 998

Section 998: Cross-Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Invalid, So It Did Not Dilute Recovery By Defendant/Cross-Complainant On Other Defense Claims

Cases: Section 998

Be Careful What You Put In Your 998 Offers, Don’t Overreach.                In T&R Painting and Drywall v. Town Building & Development, Case Nos. B330375 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), there was a convoluted dispute between a plaintiff subcontractor and a defendant general contractor, with general contractor bringing a cross-complaint

Section 998: Rejected Defense Offer Of $15,000, Where Plaintiff Recovered Nothing, Justified Award Of Defense Costs Request In An Unruh Act Case

Cases: Section 998

Defense Was Awarded $67,313.97 Under § 998, Applicable To Unruh Act Claims.                In Hughes v. Target Corp., Case No. H050996 et al. (6th Dist. Apr. 22, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an Unruh Act claim against defendant based on an altercation with Target’s security guard.  She lost.  Earlier, she had rejected a $15,000 CCP §

Cases Under Review, Section 998: California Supreme Court Decides That CCP § 998 Costs-Shifting Applies To Pre-Trial Settlements

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Section 998

. . . Although The Parties Are Free To Allocate Costs Differently Under Their Settlement.                The California Supreme Court in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. S280598 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2025) (published) decided that CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements, rather than just judgments or arbitration awards, for

Section 998: Seven Months Into Litigation, Med Mal Plaintiff Rejecting Section 998 Offer Properly Saddled With Costs-Shifting, Including Expert Witness Fees

Cases: Section 998

Acceptance Line With Request For Dismissal Was No Defect, With The Offer Made In Good Faith Based On Informative Litigation Activities.                In Standage v. Bruno, Case No. A165207 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 29, 2025) (unpublished), med mal plaintiff lost a case after the jury returned a defense verdict after less than two hours

Judgment Enforcement, Section 998: 998 Rejecting Plaintiff’s Post-judgment Fee Request To Obtain Defense 998 Cost And Fees Was Righteous And Should Have Been Allowed

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Governed Prejudgment Issues, But 998 Offer Costs And Fees Enforcement Activities Were Governed By Post-judgment Enforcement Statutes.                In Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P., Case No. G062788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, with the case resolved for less than the amount

Section 998: Although Finding “The Defendant” Language Ambiguous And No Relevant Legislative History, 2/1 DCA Finds Unaccepted 998 Cost-Shifting Penalties Are Applicable Against A Personal Representative When Defendant Died After Rejecting 998 Offer

Cases: Section 998

Policy of Encouraging Settlements Cemented This Conclusion.                In an interesting unpublished opinion, Calleja v. Udewitz, Case No. B319906 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2024) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA decided that CCP § 998’s cost-shifting penalties applied to a subsequent personal representative of a deceased defendant not accepting a 998 offer before his death

Section 998: Prevailing Insurance Carrier Defendant Properly Awarded $7,500 In Expert Witness Fees And Other Routine Costs After Plaintiffs Rejected Separate CCP § 998 Offers

Cases: Section 998

Plaintiffs Obtained Zero Damages, So $14,242.56 Offers To Each Unsuccessful Plaintiff Allowed For 998 Costs Shifting.                In Chang v. Fire Ins. Exchange, Case No. B334217 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 19, 2024) (unpublished), two plaintiffs lost insurance and related tort claims against insurance carrier, after the plaintiffs rebuffed separate $14,242.56 offers under CCP §

Section 998: 4/1 DCA Decides That Separate CCP § 998 Offers Must Be Evaluated By Offerees, Even If One Of Them Is Invalid

Cases: Section 998

This Likely Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Reasoning, Especially From Reasoning in the Second District’s Gorobets Recent Opinion—But Maybe Not On The End Result When Evaluating Alternative Offer Scenarios.                 Well, we have a split in intermediate appellate thinking on how simultaneous, alternative CCP § 998 offers should be treated under California law. On

Scroll to Top